And all because he knows damn well that he’s a terminally retarded pathological liar who tried to hide the fact that German loss rates nearly tripled in 1943.

1943, the year when German lost rates nearly tripled – was the first year the supposedly oh-so-awesome Panther was deployed in.

So much for the mythical Panzerwaffen being so much better because of their “superior” Panthers and Tigers. What we really have here are SS wannabes who can’t accept reality: The SS were hooligans who stat-padded. No surprise that WoT stat-padders are among their most stalwart fans.

First of all, again, Soviet tank losses are counted differently from the Germans. Germans counted only unrecoverable losses. Soviets counted any tank that had to go back to the factory as a loss. The same Soviet tank could be counted 2-3 times in terms of losses. Why do you think they ended the war with still tens of thousands of tanks in their inventory?

Secondly, you completely ignore that German losses actually DOUBLED starting 1943. German losses averaged 2,500 in 1941-42. They were up to 6000 annually by 1943, going up to 7,000 by 1945 even though there was only half a year worth of fighting left.

In short, the German kill ratio kept dropping. Disastrously, most especially by 1943. What used to be a 7:1 kill ratio (thanks to Germans attacking unprepared Soviet Divisions) was down to barely above 1:1 by 1945, despite the Russians being on the constant offensive.

And yes, the effect of the sneak attack actually extended all the way to 1943. The loss of several million men – including enormous numbers of trained officers – could not be made good easily. This exacerbated training issues with the Red Army, who could not really field well-trained regiments until 1943, and not consistently until 44/45.

Finally, and this really cements your reputation as a TERMINAL RETARD, you fail to realize that the vast majority of Soviet armor was not destroyed by German tanks. The tens of thousands of tanks lost early in the war were lost due to supply deprivation thanks to the German sneak attack. The losses of 43-44 were caused mainly by anti-tank guns of the German infantry Divisions, not the mythical Panzers of the idiot SS.

So again, please keep revealing yourself to be a moron who is very good at bringing up big names and figures, but completely failing to understand them.

Winning 7:1 on a sneak attack is the measure of morons and cowards. It’s the equivalent of saying Japan is so awesome for sinking 10 ships while losing only 20 aircraft at Pearl Harbor. This is why it’s the most meaningless kill ratio _ever_.

He doesn’t include TD/SPG (“assault guns”) losses in those numbers, which is weird since Red Army classified those “assault guns” as “turretless tanks”. And they ARE included in German AFV losses.

If we include them, losses are as follows:
1941: 20 500
1942: 15 100
1943: 23 500
1944: 23 700
1945: 13 700

You commies were STILL surprised and unprepared in 1943. and 1944.? Oh, my….

By the way, did you miss the pictures of Tiger IIs that were penetrated in front? (ignoring how utterly meaningless that statistic is)

Hence, 30 Tigers lost at Villers-Bocage. The 101st battalion was in fact ANNIHILATED. It was not in action for the rest of June as it rebuilt its strength.

For instance: Zaloga’s accounting of Soviet tank losses in Red Army handbook does not, in any way, support the idea that the Germans had particularly awesome tanks. Why? Because the vast majority of Soviet losses – as noted in the book – were incurred in 1941-42, when the Germans had the advantage of surprise and were fighting unprepared Soviet units.

totting out big names while not understanding what they’re actually trying to say is the very definition of terminal retardation.